KKeith - Specific Brief Response

8/12/2019 KKeith - Specific Brief Response

1/22

Specific Brief Response Kresenda L. Keith

Define organizational culture and discuss how it is formed

and sustained throughout an organization. Explain the

impact culture has on the prison environment and its

impacts on both inmates and prison staff. Does the currentculture of corrections need to exist the way that it does?

Provide an explanation for why you agree or disagree with

this statement. How does current prison culture impact

legitimacy of the correctional organization? Provide

suggestions on how legitimacy within prisons can be

improved.

Most people assume that prisons are dangerous because

they house violent convicts. In fact, in 2005, the Supreme Court

stated, [p]risons are dangerous places (Johnson v. California,

543 U.S. 499, 515). The Court was simply implying that prisons

are dangerous because prisoners are violent. Some prisoners are

violent and will be violent no matter what the circumstances,

however the degree of institutional violence is not dependent on

the prisonersit is a direct product of prison conditions and

how the state operates its prisons. If prison administrators

provide humane conditions and require strict adherence to


2/22


commonly accepted and nationally recognized techniques for

regulating the unnecessary use of force, prisons can be

reasonably safe for both prisoners and staff. Through a strong

organizational culture that asserts a sense of legitimacy, prison

administrators can promote order and safe institutions.

Legitimacy has had a major impact on many organization

theories, including institutional theory, resource dependence

theory, and organizational ecology (Scott & Davis, 2007).

Drawing off Webersview of authority, Tyler (2011) defined

legitimacy as a quality possessed by an authority, a law, or an

institution that leads others to feel obligated to obey its decisions

and directives.The central element of legitimacy is meeting

and adhering to the expectations of a social systems norms,

values, rules, and meanings (Suchman, 1995, as cited in Scott &

Davis). For example, at a micro-level, Lawrence (1998)

suggested that legitimacy indicates that one is qualified for a


3/22


particular profession. That is, the person has the knowledge,

skills, or competence to be a member of that profession. At a

macro-level, Ruef and Scott (1998) assert that organizations

must conform to normative rules, regulative processes, and

cognitive meanings. Some expectations can be explicit and set

by professional associations, governments, etc. (DiMaggio and

Powell, 1983); others can be implicit and emerge over time from

interactions among participants in a social system (Edelman,

1992).

Legitimacy can play a large part in compliance. For

example, similar to criminal justice organizations, states and

state-based power must be perceived as legitimate by both the

rulers and the ruled in order to generate genuine cooperation.

Scholars from two different perspectives have examined state

legitimacy. The first is to analyze the legitimacy of the state

from the perception of the people. Lipset (1981) stated that


4/22


legitimacy involves the capacity of the system to engender and

maintain the belief that the existing political institutions are the

most appropriate one for the society.Linz (1978) defined

legitimacy as the belief that in spite of shortcomings and

failures, the political institutions are better than others that might

be established and therefore can demand obedience. Friedrich

(1963) argued that legitimacy is a very particular form of

consensus, which revolves around the question of the right or

title to rule.A study of state legitimacy from this perspective

reveals the ability of a state to generate consensual beliefs.

Simply put, citizens (and prisoners) are less likely to support,

cooperate with, and obey authorities who lack legitimacy in their

eyes (Tyler, 1990). If inmates perceive the rules of a correctional

facility and its staff as legitimate, they are more likely to

maintain an orderly inmate culture.


5/22


A fundamental proposition of institutional theory is that

isomorphism leads to legitimacy (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983;

Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Organizations conforming to

commonly used strategies, structures, and practices appear

rational and prudent to the social system and, therefore, are

acceptable (Tolbert & Zucker, 1983). These commonly used

strategies, structures, and practices often emerge from the

interactions of organizations within an industry or field and

other stakeholders (Edelman, 1992). They may also be imposed

by powerful entities like the state, implying strong incentives to

conform (Scott, 1995). Within this isomorphism construct,

legitimacy and conformity are intertwined and essential for

control and cooperation.

Organizations looking to maintain cooperation and power

can promote legitimacy through an internal, shared,

organizational culture. Organizational culture refers to a system


6/22


of shared assumptions, values, and beliefs that show people

what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior. An

organizations culture may be one of its strongest assets or its

biggest liability. In fact, organizations that have a rare and hard-

to-imitate culture enjoy a competitive advantage (Barney, 1986).People and groups working on the floor or in other positions

develop organizational culture in work-organizations within the

organization. Another perspective, often used in management

literature, is that culture is imposed by the management and

easily applicable to the organization. These are formed to

present a certain image of the company and concern values,

rituals, anecdotes, and symbols (Alvesson, 2001). In studying

culture and organization among engineers, Kunda (1992) has

argued that culture is a learned body of tradition that governs

what one needs to know, think, and feel and that the expression

of this are signs and symbols. Whether bottom-up or top-down,


7/22


various work-related skills, routines, and habits are culturally

acquired and persist because they fit into valued strategies of

action, determined by authority figures. By performing their

work routines, organization members often get positive

reinforcement and begin internalizing the routines as theway to

do their work. Through this translation, culture is transformed

into standard operating procedures, adapted by all workers,

adding to the perception of legitimacy, and, in the case of

criminal justice organizations such as a correctional facility,

increasing compliance and safety.

Perceptions of legitimacy displayed through organizational

culture can play an important role in the effectiveness of the

correctional system, especially within the prison system. Prison

culture is a special form of organizational culture that has been

used with a certain meaning. According to the literature, the

term prison culture is almost never used as part of a formal


8/22


organization. Instead, prison culture is often regarded as solely

an inmate culture. It is then either described as a specific culture,

developing in the poor conditions of the prisons or as a

reflection of cultures on the outside brought into the prisons by

its incarcerated inhabitants (Sykes, 1958; Goffman, 1961).

Prison culture should however be viewed as including prisoners

as well as staff and management.

Inmate culture within prisons, of course, cannot be ignored

when exploring the effects of culture on legitimacy within the

organization. It is common practice by those who have never

been incarcerated to look down people who are incarcerated

upon. In fact, it is anecdotally accepted that prison occupants

have already shown an unwillingness to follow rules, hence their

reason for being there. Melnitzer (1995) asserted that Low on

self-esteem, tossed out of society, cons create a ladder so that

they have somebody to look down upon. In modern society,


9/22


prison life is a lawless world where conventional societal values

and structures are left at the door. They appear to be the very

antithesis of the order and control; however, this assumption

may be rushed.

Within a prison setting, prisoners have adapted their own

set of informal laws that act as their organizational subculture,

known as the prison code. The makeup of the code remained

largely unknown until Clemmer (1958) observed in 1940 that

the prison code protected inmate interests and revolved around

subgroup loyalty. Moreover, the codes fundamentals are

pervasive and durable. Williams and Fish (1974) describe the

prison code as a collection of habits, customs, values, beliefs,

and superstitions. According to Riemer (1938), if an inmate

desires favorable status in the opinion of his fellows, he must

adopt patterns of behavior in line with their culture. Just as in

prison officer culture, a respect for the law has consequences;


10/22


respect for the prison code also appears to be important within

the prison setting.

As seen with prisoners, correctional officers form a distinct

subculture within prisons, with their own beliefs and informal

code of conduct that set them apart from inmates. Prison officer

culture consists of prison officer values, beliefs, attitudes,

customs, and working practices. Crawley (2004), for example,

studied occupational culture and the working personalities

among prison officers. According to Crawley, this influences the

regime and relations within a prison. This culture allows for

socialization and assimilation into the culture by members,

especially new members, and promotes a sense of isomorphism

amongst all employees of the correctional system. The role of a

correctional officer can cause confusion and stress. Finn (1998),

for example, asserted, Role conflict could be defined as the

struggle of officers to reconcile custodial responsibilities (which


11/22


could include maintaining security through preventing escapes

and inmate violence) with their treatment function

(rehabilitation of offenders). Adherence to common procedure

allows correctional officers to prioritize their tasks, duties, and

goals.

Mostly often, prison culture is seen as one single culture

among prison officers. The officer code is organized principally

around ideas of solidarity and order, when it works as planned,

this is a large strength. This order and solidarity amongst

officers promotes an image of a legitimate organization and

work-group. Prison officers are often regarded as adhering to a

number of important norms, mainly concerning their working

relationships to colleagues and prisoners (Kauffman, 1988). The

legitimacy strength of the officer subculture within different

prisons can be measured by the degree to which officers adhere

to the code and by the severity and certainty of consequences


12/22


imposed on those who violate the code. New prison officers are

accepted to the extent that they are willing to follow the norms

of unity and solidarity with colleagues. However, this may

assimilate or isolate new employees. For example, Jurik (1985)

discussed an informal occupational culture as a crucial barrier

to equity for female prison officers. Isolation or segregation

from the norm could potentially be interpreted as a weakness

and deviation from the norm, demeaning the perceived

legitimacy of the group as a whole by inmates.

Prison officers find legitimacy and their authority/power

derivative from their solidarity and cohesion. Their cohesion and

militaristic conformity allows them to operate as a strong hive-

like body maintaining order and safety, rather than individuals

with individual goals. In essence, adherence to a common goal

or belief through definable practices such as wearing a uniform

or completing a set amount of training allows officers to


13/22


promote and adhere to legitimate and standard procedures.

Inmates often recognize this conformity and strictness as a

uniformed form of legitimate authority (see Milgram, 1974 for

more on the power of uniformed authority on conformity). To

lose this cohesion and ignore officer culture could mean to lose

control of the prison.

Though these two cultures seem to clash, both show a

respect for adherence to cultural norms, which imply a

legitimate subculture. The inmate subculture, and its

accompanying social code, reveals how inmates see themselves

and others. Inmates and officers appear to value adherence to

norms. These cultural assimilations should be recognized and

can be utilized to promote order and safety within the prison

system. For example, one way to manage a culture is to select

members so carefully that only those whose values and

customary behaviors are constant with the desired culture are


14/22


admitted. In a correctional setting, although they must take all

criminals sent to them, the organization has extreme sanctions

available to shape prisoners behaviors, if not their internal value

systems. Prisoners can also be assigned to different types of

prisons and different settings within the prison.

By recognizing culture as an integral system within the

organization, corrections allows for a manipulation and change

of the prison environment. Understanding the impact of culture

on the correctional system allows the organization to function

and attempt to flourish under conditions that can be complex

and, in some respects, unpredictable. Cultural change is

necessary, as seen in the desegregation of prisons or shift to

more humanistic approaches to prisoner treatment amongst

correctional officers. Within a criminal justice organization,

organizational climate is susceptible to changes resulting from

court interventionthe threat of lawsuits, court orders,


15/22


compliance with court orders, resolution of court orders, and

prospects of future court involvement. In corrections, updated

regulations reflect changes in circumstances and policies as well

as keeping consistent with relevant national and international

law. Once an organizations culture is formed,however,

tremendous pressure exists for it to persist. To change a culture

recognized as already established, effective, and legitimate,

organization members become subject to ambiguity, disrupted

patterns of interaction, questions of legitimacy and authority,

and a different set of definitions of how things are(Ekland-

Olson & Martin, 1988; Rudes, 2012). Such change is fearsome

and disruptive. Importantly, cultural change within a

correctional setting must be a slow process as to not disturb the

status quo or affect the perceived legitimacy of the system as a

whole. The correctional system simply must continually balance

the forces of stability and the push for change.


16/22


If the primary goals and objectives of prison systems are to

maintain the care, custody, and control of inmates in order to

prevent escapes, in addition to ensuring both the safety of prison

staff and inmates, prison management must be able to predict

the potential issues that may arise from changes within culture

accurately. Through a strong organizational culture, the

correctional organization as a whole can assert a sense of

legitimacy, which thereby promotes order and safe institutions.


17/22


References

Alvesson, M. (2001). Understanding Organizational Culture.

London: Sage.

Barney, J. B. (1986). Organizational culture: Can it be a source

of sustained competitive advantage?Academy Management

Review, 11, 656-665.

Clemmer, D. (1958). The Prison Community. New York, NY:

Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Crawley, E. (2004). Emotion and performance; Prison officers

and the presentation of self in prisons.Punishment and

Society. 6(4), 411-427.

DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron case revisited:

Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in

organizational fields. American Sociological Review,

48,147-60.


18/22


Edelman, L. B. (1992). Legal ambiguity and symbolic

structures: Organizational mediation of civil rights law.

American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 15311576.

Ekland-Olsen, S., & Martin, S. J. (1988). Organizational

compliance with court-ordered reform. Law & Society

Review, 22(2), 359-384.

Finn, P. 1998. Correctional officer stress: A cause for concern

and additional help.Federal Probation,2, 65-74.

Friedrich, C. J. (1963).Man and His Government: An Empirical

Theory of Politics.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of

mental patients and other inmates. New York, NY:

Doubleday.

Jurik, N. C. (1985). Individual and organizational determinants

of correctional officer attitudes toward inmates.

Criminology, 23,523-539.


19/22


Kauffman, K. (1988).Prison Officers and Their World.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kunda, G. (1992).Engineering Culture: Control and

Commitment in a High Tech Corporation.Philadelphia,

PA: Temple University Press.

Lawrence, T. B. (1998). Examining resources in an occupational

community: Reputation in Canadian forensic accounting.

Human Relations, 51, 11031131.

Linz, J. (1978). The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis,

Breakdown, & Reequilibration.Baltimore, MD: The Johns

Hopkins University Press.

Lipset, S. M. (1981).Political Man: The Social Bases of

Politics. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University

Press.

Melnitzer, J. (1995). Maximum, Minimum, Medium. Toronto,

ON: Key Porter Books.


20/22


Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized

organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony.

American Journal of Sociology.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental

View.New York: Harper and Row.

Reimer, H. (1937). Socialization on the Prison Community.

Proceedings of the American Prison Association, 151-155

Rudes, D. S. (2012). Framing organizational reform:

Misalignments and disputes among parole and union

middle managers.Law & Policy, 34(1), 1-31.

Ruef, M., &Scott, W. R. (1998). A multidimensional model of

organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing

institutional environments.Administrative Science

Quarterly, 43, 877904.

Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and

Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems


21/22


Perspectives.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice

Hall.

Scott, W. R. (1995).Institutions and Organizations.Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sykes, G. (1958). The Society of Captives. Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press.

Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1983). Institutional sources of

change in the formal structure of organizations: the

diffusion of civil service reforms 18801935.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 2239

Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why People Obey the Law.New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press.

Tyler, T. R. (2011). Why People Cooperate: The Role of Social

Motivations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Williams,V., & Fish, M. (1974). Convicts, Codes, and

Contraband. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.


22/22


Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lucia-claudia
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

KKeith - Specific Brief Response

Documents